1. The Defendant’s KRW 84,441,454 as well as its annual rate from September 12, 2013 to July 8, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the objective of building design and supervision, etc., and the Defendant is a school foundation that operates B University (hereinafter “Defendant University”).

B. (1) On October 11, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a construction supervision agreement with the Defendant University, under which the Plaintiff would be responsible for supervision of the construction work of the new construction work of the Defendant University C (hereinafter “C new construction work”) with the Defendant University C (hereinafter “C new construction work”).

(2) Around October 2005, D entered into a construction contract with the Defendant University under which D receives a new construction from the Defendant University. On July 2007, 2007, D transferred the said C to the Defendant University and completed the remaining construction until August 20 of the same year.

(3) Around January 2008, D filed an application for arbitration against the Defendant University for the payment of additional construction cost in relation to the new construction works, and the Defendant University filed a lawsuit against D on November 2008 against D on the ground that there is a defect in new construction works, and received some favorable rulings from the said court, following the Daegu District Court 2008Gahap12358, which filed a lawsuit seeking damages equivalent to the cost of defect repair, and received some favorable rulings from the said court. On December 201, 201, D’s compulsory conciliation order was concluded by the appellate court (Tgu High Court 2010Na7721) that appealed appealed.

(hereinafter “Defects lawsuit, etc.”). (4) On the other hand, the Defendant University around June 15, 2009 and the same year in order to cope with D’s defect lawsuits, etc.

8. Around 17. Around two occasions, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to investigate the defective construction works and defects related to C New Construction, and on September 7, 2009, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant University to enter into a research service contract with the content of the instant contract for the investigation of the defective construction works.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant defect investigation”). C.

In relation to E Campus construction (1) The Defendant University on September 29, 2010, the E Campus Repair Works at the Defendant University on September 29, 2010, and the Ecampus Ecfers at the Defendant University, and the Ecc